Putting Mothers To Work Watching Their Own Kids
Published June 23, 2009 @ 08:05AM PT
A report released last week shows that
the percentage of underemployed workers in Los Angeles County has doubled in the past year to 18 percent...Underemployment takes a broader look at the economy than official state unemployment figures because it also includes those who have given up on looking for a job or have been involuntarily reduced to part-time employment.
The report, "Ebbing Tides in the Golden State" by the Economic Roundtable also demonstrated that insecure employment has been hit hardest:
“Many of L.A.’s industries that have lost the most jobs in the first year of the recession have high rates of informal employment, including retail trade, construction, non-durable manufacturing, wholesale trade and hotels,” said report lead author Daniel Flaming, president of the Economic Roundtable, which is a non-profit public policy research organization in downtown Los Angeles.
As mentioned here previously, 1099s, those surviving on cash transactions, are really getting slammed in this recession. And now, California wants to keep unemployed mothers from job seeking and training, and pay them to stay home and care for their kids instead.
Recommendations from the report include land banking by the state for future affordable housing development, raising taxes - especially property taxes, and sectoral investments. NOT recommended: eliminating welfare and assistance for low-income children. For now California has preserved CalWORKS, but has planned to cut $270M from it, including for childcare.
I keep writing about California here because it's so prominent and also so reflective of what's happening in states around the country. It's an outsized disaster like Hurricane Katrina that overexposes all the fundamental gaps in our economic and social policies. And now officials are trying to get creative. The latest cost-saving measure? Dropping the requirement for unemployed mothers to pursue job training and work, but instead put them to work caring for their own kids. Estimated savings range from $140 to $200M.
What do you think? Should California keep moms from seeking work? Is it humane to give them more time at home with their infants and toddlers? Does this restrict or expand a mother's options?
Let the debates about "dependency" and self-sufficiency begin!
(Photo from Southwestern University in Georgetown, TX by Dustin Coates)
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
-
No Work for Welfare in CA
-
Policies that Actually Promote Self-Sufficiency
-
"A Work-Based Safety Net With No Work"
Comments (13)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Leigh is a PhD candidate in urban planning at MIT, and a consultant on U.S. Gulf Coast recovery. She sits on the Board of the Allston-Brighton Community Development Corporation in Boston, and has worked with non-profits, foundations and local governments on policies and programs aimed at reducing urban poverty and inequality.
Featured Poverty in America Actions
-
-
-
Repeal the Hyde Amendment!
88 People
-
Repeal the Hyde Amendment!
I love this idea. I would however change the word "mother" to parent.
Posted by Charlie Reed on 06/23/2009 @ 09:05AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
It's deliberate, Charlie. The only examples used are mothers and mothers are the overwhelming recipients of public assistance (TANF).
Posted by Leigh Graham on 06/23/2009 @ 09:21AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
i have a lot of thoughts on this, and wrote on the issue recently (http://abbyjean.tumblr.com/post/125283856/proposed-changes-to-cas-welfare-program). to my knowledge, this would exempt women from welfare to work requirements but allow them to opt in if they chose, so it's not a requirement that they stay home and care for kids, but an additional option.
in practice, though, people who are exempted from work requirements often have a hard time opting in and accessing services such as child care and transportation when they do, so i see this as an additional barrier for women on welfare obtaining training, education, or work experience they need in order to become self-sufficient. and at the end of the time limits (it's unclear whether or not the 5 year limit would be tolled for this exemption), they're not more likely to be able to support themselves just because they saved the state welfare system some money in child care.
Posted by abby jean on 06/23/2009 @ 09:34AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Great post abby jean. I hope my other readers check it out!
Posted by Leigh Graham on 06/23/2009 @ 11:09AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Leigh, I understand, and Mothers are My first choice anyway, but it may not always be the Mom Who wants to take advantage of this program. As a single father perhaps My daughter would have benefited from Me being home.
Posted by Charlie Reed on 06/23/2009 @ 10:05AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
the policy would apply to any single parent, whether a mother or father. i believe what leigh was saying is that since about 99% of single parents on calworks are mothers, rather than fathers, it's essentially accurate to use the term "mother" when discussing single parents on calworks.
Posted by abby jean on 06/23/2009 @ 10:13AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Abby is right, but I apologize for erasing you and your family from the discussion, Charlie.
Posted by Leigh Graham on 06/23/2009 @ 11:01AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
No sweat Leigh, I'm just trying to be pc. Not always easy when You are 56!
Posted by Charlie Reed on 06/23/2009 @ 12:03PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
You seem able to learn new tricks, Charlie! :)
Posted by Leigh Graham on 06/23/2009 @ 12:52PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
It all boils down to time management.
As struggling single parents what are we teaching our children about managing our time to over-come certain financial struggles. I think that as a nation facing the worst economic crisis thus far we should evolve our childern to becoming productive, ethical, marketable, representations of how hard our single parents faught to provide for us when there just was not enough to keep things going .
Maybe we are missing the point here!
It seems as though the pursuit of happiness has now given itself a standardized pace.
Those that can't keep up, will be left behind!
Posted by Aaron Shaw on 06/23/2009 @ 10:38PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Yea, Aaron I agree with you. I was a single mom working sometimes 2 or 3 jobs to provide just the essentials but now as gown adults they understand it's the relationship that counts not things and they don't care if they don't have the latest gadget. They learned what hard work and sacrifice will get you. With determination somehow we got through. We as a family give to our orgaizations that supply food shelter etc so we can help someone else who is going through what we went through.
Posted by Mary Ann Thompson on 06/29/2009 @ 03:30PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
As a single mother I raised two children and chose to stay at home with them until they were each three. In that time block I looked after other children informally. Beyond beginning school, I skilled up and worked casually during school hours. I was lucky, and there were times I still don't know how we got through.
In this country we have a toothless institution called the Child Support Agency which is supposed to collect a financial contribution from your ex-partner to help with the child raising expenses. Here's what happened in my case - For the 12 odd early years, my ex paid $5 per child per week. My daughter moved in with him at age 14, and for the next 4 years of her schooling, I paid more than every cent of that back. Go figure!
Posted by Oceania OZ on 06/26/2009 @ 06:32PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I should say, the reason he paid so little was that he was long-term unemployed. The reason I pay so much is that I have employment. He was unwilling, I was willing, ergo I pay.
Posted by Oceania OZ on 06/26/2009 @ 06:39PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.